So he took their money, but didn't actually produce anything for them? Is that what he's saying? Or is he saying that despite producing something while on Opera's payroll, those things he produced while hired and paid by Opera don't really belong to Opera?

So they kept him on as a consultant for up to a year without him doing anything? You know how expensive consultants tend to be? So basically, Opera paid a whole lot of money and had nothing when their ways departed?

Since when did not doing any work under Opera in regards to the claimed stolen property translate into not doing any work at all?

You're just as ignorant in this case as everyone else, at least until such time as you can actually say what was stolen and what his job/contract entailed.

When did I claim that the video wasn't relevant? The video is allegedly what shows the functionality that was stolen. What isn't relevant is the part of the video that shows the minimalist browser because according to Hansen himself, that minimalist thing is not what this lawsuit is about.

If the prototype isn't relevant, then so are the features it contains.

It took him nearly a year to pitch an idea (according to his own blog, he was hired as a consultant in early 2009, and left in early 2010)? If they hired him to come up with ideas and he came up with ideas, then those ideas belong to Opera. Otherwise Opera paid him a lot of money (keeping a consultant on for a year can't be cheap) for nothing.

How do the quotes illustrate that I changed my position? You need to be more specific than that. Obviously he was working on something while hired as a consultant, and that obviously belongs to Opera because they paid him to do it. But he doesn't think Opera owns what they paid him for for some reason. So he decided to steal that which now belonged to Opera, and sell it to Mozilla.

Why do I have to be specific when you get to hide behind vague claims and semantics?

First you can't decide if it was a feature, idea or concept that was stolen, now his job seems to alternate between being a paid ideas-guy and "working on something".

Seems rather pointless to claim someone is guilty of theft when you can't even answer these questions.

Since when did not doing any work under Opera in regards to the claimed stolen property translate into not doing any work at all?

So you know for a fact that what Opera is suing for is not something anyone did any work on?

You're just as ignorant in this case as everyone else, at least until such time as you can actually say what was stolen and what his job/contract entailed.

Did you actually read his blog? As obviously one-sided as it is it actually clarifies quite a few things.

If the prototype isn't relevant, then so are the features it contains.

Did you actually watch the video? The Junior prototype was separate from other features they showed. Those features were part of a desktop browser. One of them was mentioned in the guy's blog where he specifically explained that the Junior was not part of the lawsuit.

In other words, the simplified Junior iPad browser is not relevant. At least one of the actual desktop features mentioned in the browser is, however.

Why do I have to be specific when you get to hide behind vague claims and semantics?

I'm not. In fact, I have pointed you both to the video from 2012 and the guy's own blog. You are, however, making vague claims that you refuse to back up.

First you can't decide if it was a feature, idea or concept that was stolen, now his job seems to alternate between being a paid ideas-guy and "working on something".

It doesn't matter whether it was a feature, idea or concept. The point is that the work he did at Opera belongs to Opera.

What if it turns out that he did sell one or more trade secrets to Mozilla? Do you agree that the lawsuit would have merit in such a case?

The blog only confirms what I originally thought.

So not only was the original idea/concept never developed, but it was originally thought of in a period of time when Hansen was neither an employee or contractor - and proposed informally before he was contracted.

All you seem to be left with is a weak connection to some of his later contract work that was based on his "GB" concept, thus bringing us back to my original question. What exactly was stolen, and what is Opera's claim to it?

So not only was the original idea/concept never developed, but it was originally thought of in a period of time when Hansen was neither an employee or contractor - and proposed informally before he was contracted.

What do you mean by "never developed"? Doing design work is not real work? Internal and secret design documents are not covered by NDAs and other contracts?

Are you also saying that if you originally think of something and then get paid to design it, that design doesn't belong to those who paid for the design to be made? So basically, any work a designer does for a company doesn't really belong to the company?

All you seem to be left with is a weak connection to some of his later contract work that was based on his "GB" concept, thus bringing us back to my original question. What exactly was stolen, and what is Opera's claim to it?

So you didn't read his blog after all? Because he mentions at least one specific example. And even though you didn't read it you claim that it supports your argument? LOL.

Now, back to my question: What if it turns out that he did sell one or more trade secrets to Mozilla? Do you agree that the lawsuit would have merit in such a case?

What do you mean by "never developed"? Doing design work is not real work? Internal and secret design documents are not covered by NDAs and other contracts?

Are you also saying that if you originally think of something and then get paid to design it, that design doesn't belong to those who paid for the design to be made? So basically, any work a designer does for a company doesn't really belong to the company?

Are you dense? It quite clearly says in his blog:

In the summer of 2008, Opera’s founder and CEO at the time, Jon von Tetzchner reaches out and asks if I want to contribute more to Opera. I tell him about GB and propose that we could develop GB as a rebooted and simplified Opera browser. He is very interested, but when we start to talk business, and I tell him that I want no salary and no shares, but 1% of the search revenue as compensation, he says that’s not possible. So there is no deal. In fact, there is never any kind of deal or transfer of ownership of GB concepts to Opera.

So "GB" was never developed under Opera, and Hansen was not under employment or contract at that time.

So you didn't read his blog after all? Because he mentions at least one specific example. And even though you didn't read it you claim that it supports your argument? LOL.

There is nothing contained within the blog that is specific. Simply mentioning a Firefox feature and Opera claiming that's evidence he leaked something is neither specific nor meaningful.

LOL. You didn't even bother to read all of it. The very next paragraph states:

"In the beginning of 2009, we come to an agreement of me just helping out as a consultant instead, and during 2009 and 2010 some of my design proposals will naturally be based on some of my older GB concepts, since that’s the direction I wanted to take the browser. "

So "GB" was never developed under Opera, and Hansen was not under employment or contract at that time.

So you are claiming that he never actually did any consultancy work for Opera? That he was never actually hired or paid in 2009-2010?

There is nothing contained within the blog that is specific. Simply mentioning a Firefox feature and Opera claiming that's evidence he leaked something is neither specific nor meaningful.

Again you prove that you didn't read the blog. He mentions a specific example himself!

Now, back to my question: What if it turns out that he did sell one or more trade secrets to Mozilla? Do you agree that the lawsuit would have merit if that were the case?

LOL. You didn't even bother to read all of it. The very next paragraph states:

"In the beginning of 2009, we come to an agreement of me just helping out as a consultant instead, and during 2009 and 2010 some of my design proposals will naturally be based on some of my older GB concepts, since that’s the direction I wanted to take the browser. "

So you are claiming that he never actually did any consultancy work for Opera? That he was never actually hired or paid in 2009-2010?

Irrelevant. The original core concept was envisioned outside of Opera's reach so it's none of their business. The extent of their rights are limited to the content of the designs delivered to them under the contract.

Again you prove that you didn't read the blog. He mentions a specific example himself!

What part of "Simply mentioning a Firefox feature and Opera claiming that's evidence he leaked something is neither specific nor meaningful" don't you understand?

Irrelevant. The original core concept was envisioned outside of Opera's reach so it's none of their business. The extent of their rights are limited to the content of the designs delivered to them under the contract.

Actually, he was paid by Opera to make something. It doesn't matter if he had an idea before selling it to Opera. He was paid by Opera to come up with ideas, and he delivered ideas to them. That means that Opera has paid for those ideas, and they are Opera's property.

What part of "Simply mentioning a Firefox feature and Opera claiming that's evidence he leaked something is neither specific nor meaningful" don't you understand?

No, he mentions that as a specific thing Opera alleges that he illegally sold to Mozilla. Whether this is really the case is for the courts to decide.

Remember, you wrote: "There is nothing contained within the blog that is specific."

But the blog is being specific about a feature.

Now, back to my question: What if it turns out that he did sell one or more trade secrets to Mozilla? Do you agree that the lawsuit would have merit if that were the case? Why are you afraid to answer this question?

Actually, he was paid by Opera to make something. It doesn't matter if he had an idea before selling it to Opera. He was paid by Opera to come up with ideas, and he delivered ideas to them. That means that Opera has paid for those ideas, and they are Opera's property.

Yes, it does matter. Because if that idea is not what was given to Opera then it's not their property. Simple as that.

No, he mentions that as a specific thing Opera alleges that he illegally sold to Mozilla. Whether this is really the case is for the courts to decide.

Remember, you wrote: "There is nothing contained within the blog that is specific."

But the blog is being specific about a feature.

There is nothing specific in pointing at something and then merely claiming it's proof of theft. Why do you have such a problem with understanding this simple concept?

Now, back to my question: What if it turns out that he did sell one or more trade secrets to Mozilla? Do you agree that the lawsuit would have merit if that were the case? Why are you afraid to answer this question?

Hypotheticals are completely irrelevant to this discussion. Are you trying to divert attention away from your destroyed arguments?

Why does Opera still exist? What's the point of it. They don't use their own engine, they have next to no market share, and the majority of their users are self loving ******s.

Well because engine aside it's still the best browser. I've tried changing but no other bowser relly can replace it. By the time I have chrome or FF working a close to opera as possible, I have installed bucketload of extensions and tweaked them to hell, and here sill NLT halfway there.

Besides that, 1% is million upon millions. And it's not ll they do'they also do embedded browsers for Sony and Nintendo among others.

As for the users, so you're saying opera users are like chrome and FF users then...